tv The Rachel Maddow Show MSNBC January 29, 2013 1:00am-2:00am PST
so this idea that somehow kroft failed to get them to make news is ridiculous. >> here is more where the president is giving high praise to secretary clinton. here it is. >> i think hillary will go down as one of the finest secretary of states we've had. i want the country to appreciate just what an extraordinary role she has played during the course of my administration, and a lot of the successes we've had internationally have been because of her hard work. >> there was a real letdown in the clinton arena when she did not get the nomination in 2008. it was a real jolt. and for her to come back and perform for the country the way she has, don't you think that's part of what this is all about? >> yeah. i thought actually one of the most interesting parts of the interview is when steve kroft asked about spouses. because that's where in politics a lot of times the real bitterness lingers. and, you know, bill clinton has had a harder time forgiving the president than hillary clinton has. and michelle obama i think has had a harder time burying the hatchet than president obama
has. this was a very tough race in 2008. but what is interesting is that they seem to have some chemistry in that interview. it wasn't a kind of formal stiff -- >> it was pretty smooth, pretty natural. >> they had a connection with each other that was important for the country to see. >> all right, jonathan alter, great to have you with us. thank you so much. that's "the ed show." i'm ed schultz. and rachel maddow of "the rachel maddow show" starts right now. >> good evening, and thank you. >> you bet. >> thanks to you at home for staying with us this hour. the 50th state in the united states is of course hawaii. 49th state admitted the year before, alaska. so those were 49 and 50. those are the last two states admitted to the union in 1958 and 1959. what was the last state admitted before then? before alaska and hawaii, the last state admitted in the contiguous united states, the last state admitted on the big part of the map?
that was arizona. arizona was the 48th state. it was not admitted to the union until 1912. it just has not been a state for very long, which is maybe why it sometimes feels like arizona is still working out the kinks. but it also means that all of the oldest things about the state as a state just aren't very old at all. the first governor of the state of arizona was in office starting in 1912. only 100 years ago, right? and if you are a schoolchild in arizona, and you are treated to a school field trip to the arizona capitol museum, one of the things you'll be treated to on that field trip is the sight of the state's first governor. george w.p. hunt, as a life-sized wax figurine, right down to the life-sized white shoes. see? under the desk right there. he is wax. he is seated at his desk. if you are freaked out by the life-sized wax figure of the first governor of arizona and you leave the arizona state
capitol museum and you flee into the streets of phoenix, you will find yourself still kind of face-to-face with that same dead governor, because looming over phoenix at papago park high on a park over all is this, the tomb of the first governor of the state of arizona. he is in there and so is his first family. he built the pyramid for himself while he still alive, and once he died they arranged to put him in it. it apparently has a lovely view. agh! arizona has not had governor very long. they have only had governors for about 100 years. even that short history is a history that is slightly fraught. the last governor of the state, of course, left office to go to washington to become homeland security secretary. we now learned that janet napolitano is going to stay on for a second term. so there is nothing particularly fraught about that. but it is a somewhat unusual ending to a governorship. but even that unusual ending to a governorship is very, very normal compared to the way it usually ends in arizona.
of the last nine governors of the state of arizona, three of them have resigned, one of them was impeached and one of them died in office. the last arizona governor to complete two terms that started as normal and ended as normal was this guy, one-eyed jack. that's what they called him. that's not a blur in the photo. jack williams, his name was. he had only one eye, so he wore a blurry lens in his eyeglasses. he is the last guy who did two terms as normal, and that was 40 years ago. business week wrote about the strangeness of the history of arizona governorships recently when the current governor, jan brewer, started making noises that she should stay for a third term. now arizona governors are term limited to two terms. but the person who is in the job now, jan brewer decided that she should maybe get a third term any way. her long-time attorney started making the case in an op-ed, that jan brewer essentially should refuse to leave office. he explained it's his reasoning that, quote, it comes down to what does a term mean.
he is right in a way, what is time? look, george w.p. hunt is still there at the capitol museum. governor jan brewer's time in office has been marked by confrontation and controversy. she has aggressively marketed herself as a confrontational conservative. she has tried to develop a national profile that is all about toughness and confrontation. her memoir is titled "scorpions for breakfast." and while she may be tough and she may be confrontational, what frankly is more central to her national profile is not necessarily toughness or confrontation, but rather the sense that there is something unique, something special about her, at least something unpredictable. >> and finally, we hear from jan brewer. >> thank you, ted. and it's great to be here with larry, barry, and terry. and thank you all for watching us tonight. i have done so much, and i just
cannot believe that we have changed everything since i had become your governor in the last 600 days. arizona has been brought back from its abyss. we have cut the budget. we have balanced the budget, and we are moving forward. we have done everything that we could possibly do. we have, um -- did what was right for arizona. >> which beheadings in arizona were you referring to? >> oh, our law enforcement agencies have found bodies in the desert either buried or just lying out there that have been beheaded. >> jan, i call upon you today to say that there are no beheadings. that was a false statement, and it needs to be cleared up right now. >> and you know, terry, i will call you out. i think that you ought to
renounce your support and endorsement of the unions. >> brewer, why wouldn't you recant the comment you made earlier about the beheadings in the desert? >> seriously, that's a serious question, governor. >> this was an interesting evening tonight. >> governor, please answer the question about the headless bodies. why won't you recant that? do you still believe that? come on, governor. >> okay, thank you, all. >> governor! >> come on. >> governor jan brewer, republican of arizona. always worth watching. wants a third term. today in washington, a bipartisan group of four democratic senators and four republican senators unveiled what they say is a viable bipartisan, widely accepted specific policy prescription for the country finally being able to do something about immigration. this is not a narrow bore tightly focused policy microsolution to some part of the immigration program that's the easiest thing to deal with. this is actually a comprehensive
effort, which is what all the experts in the field say is necessary in order to get anything real done on this as a matter of policy. it's also the only way to get eight senators as disparate as these guys to sign on to something together. generally speaking, when you're trying to come to a deal with disparate elements like this, the legislation has to be complicated enough that the eight people trying to agree on it can horse trade a little bit, right? they can get individual things that they like, they can trade away individual things that they don't want to be in the bill. that's how you come to a deal. this was a big, complex, comprehensive proposal that these eight senators put forward today. the only major problem that was immediately apparent in what they put forward was this. >> we have, um -- >> yeah. republicans have long said they would not agree to do anything about immigration unless there were tough new seal the border enforcement actions, right?
and those seal the border enforcement actions had to be taken as some sort of precursor to doing anything else about the 11 million people who are in this country without legal immigration status. the way that they handled that republican requirement in this current complex bill that they put forward today is that they establish a commission of southwesterners, elected representatives, governors, and other people from southwest border states. they would be put in a position of holding up all of the other advancements in the bill, keeping people from doing all of the other things that are in this policy, from getting in line for citizenship, stopping all the other reforms if this southwestern commission did not certify that the border had been secured, that all efforts to secure the border were complete. the border security measures would have to be done first. this group would have to say they've been completed, that everything on the border is secure, and only then could the reforms put forth go forward. that was put out by the eight
senators, which means nothing happens until somebody like jan brewer says everything is okay. maybe jan brewer specifically. jan brewer is never going to say everything is okay. things are not okay for jan brewer, whether it is making stuff up about headless bodies in the desert that don't exist or trying to market to the nation how excited we should be that she wagged her finger in the president's face when talking to him about border security. if it all rests in her hands, she gets veto power? or any other local official's hands to give thumbs-up or thumbs-down as to whether or not the country can go ahead with something we agree we need as a whole country? that seems like a weakness in the plan. when asked about this one laugh out loud provision in what seems like otherwise a very reasonable proposal, senators and staffers who are on the democratic side of these negotiations for this bipartisan group said essentially, don't worry about it. this southwesterners commission will be able to make recommendations, but they won't be given veto power over what happens for the whole country
and millions of americans counting on reform. marco rubio's office on the republican side has given a much more evasive answer, implying that maybe he thinks that jan brewer would have veto power. so clearly, that matter is going to have to be settled. as a matter of policy, though, in a collection of proposals and policies that is otherwise imminently centrist, that is otherwise just a list of reasonable incremental reforms that everyone is not an extremist on the issue has long agreed must be done, in the midst of all these other policies, this one clause frankly does seem to stand out as being too stupid to live. so it will either have to disappear, or it will have to be just a recommendation and nonbinding the way the democrats are saying, or if they're going to leave this thing in there and it is going to have veto power, it's going to have binding authority, that will be the stupidest hill ever on which this totally needed policy change dies on. at a time when real substantial bipartisan legislation seems inconceivable, even the fact that this was introduced today and announced today seems like a great victory for the art of the
possible in washington, right? for the prospect that d.c. actually could make policy again, instead of just making sparks fly. but this is an area of policy where things have felt possible before. you might remember in 2007 it was john mccain with the support of the chairman senator who went on to be chairman of the republican party, mel martinez, all supporting a comprehensive immigration proposal, much like this one today, that never went anywhere that year. by the time john mccain was running for president the year after, he said actually he would vote down his own bill. >> at this point, if your original proposal came to a vote on the senate floor, would you vote for it? >> it won't. it won't. that's why we went through the debate. no, i would not, because we know what the situation is today. that people want the border secured first. >> john mccain in 2008, running against his own immigration position from 2007. in order to try to get his party's nomination for the presidency that year.
in order to win his party's presidential nomination this past year, mitt romney was the champion of self-deportation. remember, he said he would veto the dream act, and he brought on the guy who wrote the "papers, please" law in arizona as his immigration adviser. the republican party's own platform that they just agreed to for the romney campaign is vehemently opposed to the exact reforms that these eight senators brought forth today. but there were four republican senators today making this proposal. the proposal has been made, and should it be noted that it matches almost word for word the exact immigration proposal that president obama made in a big speech in el paso back in the spring of 2011. president obama is due to announce his own ideas on this subject tomorrow. we can guess if he meant what he said in el paso, that what he says tomorrow will very closely mirror what the senators laid out today, presumably with the exception of this one absolutely indefensible, bizarre "please the republicans" clause.
this is an incremental centrist consensus lift of reforms, which any reasonable understanding of how washington works, this should be totally viable. should be. but of course this isn't political science. this is our real washington. and that means it has to go through the house too, where mark my words, watch. the jan brewer clause will be the only part of this thing that they like. joining us now is e.j. dionne. it's great to see you. >> good to be here. >> it naive for me to think this might be possible? >> i don't think so at all. and thank god you didn't ask me about the headlessness issue. i think we saw today, people talk all the time about the cost of politics and the price of politics. but they're actually achievements of politics. today was brought to you by the 2012 election. and there was something poignant
about john mccain being there, supporting the bill that he originally supported before the 2008 election, because he suffered badly at the polls in 2008 among latinos, even though he had championed immigration reform. mitt romney did worse among latinos. and i think a lot of republicans realize that they cannot hold to this restriction in his position forever without suffering real costs. in terms of that crazy commission provision, it was fascinating to see the democrats say and the language on your screen said make a recommendation, that is vague language. the democrats were trying to say this is a very vague thing. the republicans like rubio are probably going to try to make a big deal of it. but you know what? there is even action in the house. and the house is where progressive legislation goes to die these days. but even paul ryan has been saying good things about what marco rubio is up to. so i don't rule out the
possibility that this thing can actually pass. >> i'm glad you brought up the possibility of movement in the house. cbs first reported tonight that there has been bipartisan group in the house meeting on immigration in secret, just like these senators did on the other side of congress. is there something structurally different between the house and the senate that would make a bipartisan agreement that's possible in one of the two houses, not possible in the other one? or would you expect a bipartisan group in the house to be able to come up with something much like this senate plan? >> the house has a much more difficult problem. i mean, what you have here is a split between the national republican party and nationally-oriented republicans who know the price of continuing to oppose immigration reform. but a lot of these individual republican house members represent districts where not only are they very safe, but many of their voters would like them to continue to take a hard line on immigration. so there is a kind of conflict
of interest between the views of those members and their view of what their constituents want and the national party. nonetheless, there was a significant number of republicans and significant enough number that if john boehner can yet again figure out how to pass a bill with significant democratic support, i think this can get through. the question is how often can boehner do that? if he can do that a lot, we're going to get a lot of legislation through the house. >> e.j. dionne of the "washington post" and brookings. i feel naive for saying it, but you make me feel better. >> thank you. you too. >> it's great to have you here. we have lots more ahead, including nobel prize winning economist paul krugman. and later, an i call bullpucky story has gotten even more bullish since i covered it. we will be right back. [ lane ] are you growing old waiting for your wrinkle cream to work? neutrogena® rapid wrinkle repair has the fastest retinol formula.
to visibly reduce fine lines and wrinkles in just one week. neutrogena®. to visibly reduce fine lines and wrinkles in just one week. [ female announcer ] some people like to pretend a flood could never happen to them. and that their homeowners insurance protects them. [ thunder crashes ] it doesn't. stop pretending. only flood insurance covers floods. ♪ visit floodsmart.gov/pretend to learn your risk.
okay. here is how you know it has been a busy day in politics. here is how you know when there is a lot going on in washington, d.c. at around 2:30 eastern time this afternoon, we had that big bipartisan group of eight senators come out to announce that they have reached a framework agreement on how to move forward on comprehensive immigration reform. this is a huge development. immigration reform has been inexplicably in washington.
since the white house has been pushing immigration reform for years, and particularly in particular months, you would think they would greet the announcement from the bipartisan senators by dropping everything and making today immigration reform day in washington. but that did not happen, because the white house in fact decided to preempt that big immigration reform photo op this afternoon with a photo op of their own a few hours earlier on a totally different subject. >> vice president biden and i just want to thank the police chiefs and sheriffs who are here today representing law enforcement officials all across the country, who obviously share our deep concern about issues of gun safety and how we can protect our communities and keep our kids safe. >> there are few things historically speaking that are seen as bigger political lifts
in washington than immigration reform or than gun reform. but just eight days into this second term, the obama administration is working actively to accomplish both of these things simultaneously. today president obama and vice president biden met with police chiefs and local sheriffs from around the country, including police chiefs from newtown, connecticut, aurora, colorado, and oak creek, wisconsin, all of which have endured major mass shootings just within the past six months. vice president biden also held a roundtable discussion on gun reform in richmond, virginia on friday. he had the homeland secretary and health secretary with him there. president obama himself made a high profile reference to gun reform in his inauguration speech last week. other cabinet members, including the attorney general, have been making their own news on moving forward on gun reform, mental health reform, background checks. the administration, in other words, doing everything they can to not only move on this, but to keep gun reform at the top of the national agenda, to not let it slide out of the news with the passage of time after the newtown shootings. the white house said they would work on it this way, because they know it's going to be a
heavy lift. well, in addition to the white house meetings with law enforcement and the speeches and the roundtable discussions in places like richmond, and in addition to all of that stuff, the way the white house has said that they were going to try to get around what has made this too heavy of a lift for previous presidents is that they said they were going to play the outside game. they were going to go outside washington. they were going to get the grassroots involved. specifically, they were going to bring the president's 2012 campaign apparatus to bear on this really important and difficult policy issue. as nbc's michael isikoff reported, they have given over the database to the new advocacy group organizing for action. organizing for action is being run by the heavyweights of president obama's 2012 reelection campaign. their stated goal is to use the apparatus and the contact list and the volunteer energy that got president obama reelected, use that to get his agenda passed in his second term. nobody has ever done this before. but the obama folks are doing
it. they have now started that effort with gun safety and with immigration. and if you think about just gun safety in particular, it makes sense, right? if it is traditionally too hard to get the politics of this done, then you better bring nontraditional means to bear if you want to get it done this time. and using the president's campaign apparatus to get it done is definitely a nontraditional way of doing it. but when organizing for action puts out what appears to be the very first solicitation to that giant list on a policy issue, when they urge the millions of recipients on the mailing list to call their member of congress immediately and to tell them to get behind the president's proposals on gun reform, that call your congressman right now e-mail went out at 4:26 p.m. on a friday afternoon. specifically, on a friday afternoon when neither the house nor the senate were in session. really? call your senator right now? late on a friday afternoon on a day when he or she does not have to be at work, at a time when the staffers are likely to be on
their way home too? the whole idea of making their people call congress is showing that you can, right? flex your muscles. show that you have millions of people ready to be mobilized at the drop of the hat and drive that home by making the phone ring in their office when they can do that. doing that at 4:26 p.m. on a friday when congress isn't in session? even if people would do it, you're aiming to fill up the voice mail maybe and hoping when people check it monday morning that that's what it was about? this was the big launch? what's going on here? joining us now is a man who is the closest i can get to the white house or to the obama campaign apparatus without actually being allowed to talk to somebody from the white house or the campaign apparatus. bill burton is the former white house deputy press secretary and co-founder of priorities usa political action committee. he is managing director at global strategy group, which sounds both leviathan and tear fight. bill burton. >> that's what i was going for.
>> executive and vice president managing director of global strategy group. >> you said bright but uncertain future when i was on a while ago. now it's certain. >> fair enough. i won't ask. >> i assume i'll know before it kills me. >> i have to say, 4:30 on a friday is actually a really good time to get a member of congress. they're probably not doing anything. >> they're probably not at work. >> you catch them right before happy hour. you get right through. you get right through. >> no. is this just -- is the obama for america organizing apparatus that existed in 2008 that got folded the dnc essentially went on autopilot and wasn't effective during the president's first term, is that is what is going to happen? are they going to run it on autopilot? >> no, look, you have some of the smartest minds in politics. they have one of the best lists ever assembled. >> the best list ever assembled? >> and they're going to put it to work. the thing we have right now is
the nra has always been this powerhouse organization, which has been a lot more money than actual action. what you have now is a countervailing force where you can actually have a grassroots effort to get people to call their members of congress, to put some pressure on them, and actually get something done from the outside. and i just came from the new republic launch party. as the president told the new republic, you know, you've got to get the change from the outside in, or else it's never going to happen. and if people don't call their members of congress and say to the ones who disagree with this policy, you've got to move or you're going to pay a political price. and tell the ones who do agree with the policy, great, thank you, keep pushing because we need this right now. >> but the first time they are employing it, they sent out a couple of e-mails essentially saying we're doing this thing. this is the first time they have tried to apply it on a policy matter. you have to admit the timing was ridiculous. >> well. >> that makes me feel like there might be big minds coming up with the big ideas. but people who are executing it are doing a bad job. that seems surprising to me for
a campaign that was so good at executing both times. >> one thing i don't think you noticed because the obama campaign was so big and it was so many things all at once, when you execute one of these online campaign, what you have to do sometimes is the soft launch, and that e-mail that went out is probably slightly different from other e-mails that went out. it's a test. you see what people really react to, and you use that data to really engage voters who are on the list when you do your huge, big launch later on. so i think this is just part of a strategy leading up to what is going to be a sustained effort to really hold members' feet to the fire and get the kind of change we need. >> and you don't have any doubts about it? >> no. i don't have any doubts. >> here is the thing. i don't care about how effective any political organization is, except just in terms of studying the tactics, i would expect the best list in politics to produce big results. >> uh-huh. >> when it is employed. and if they don't know how to drive that car, it's doesn't matter. >> you can't always do it right from the beginning. sometimes you test different
messages, you test subject line, ps's, all sorts of different things. you figure out what is the best way to do this and that is what gives you the big results. >> one last question on immigration specifically. do you expect this outside game if they try to employee it on guns and immigration, it will be employed differently? or is it the same set of tactics that you try to use that campaign apparatus to employee. or is this a multifaceted thing you can do a lot of things with it? >> i think it will be similar. the difference in the immigration fight is you've got much larger groups on the outside who have been doing a lot of this work. on the gunfight, you've got the brady group, the bloomberg group, but on the immigration you have the enormous apparatuses. and i think the grassroots behind that is going to be intense. luckily it already has a bunch of momentum going today. and tomorrow with the president's speech, i actually think we're going to get something done. >> i think the thing that is going to be fascinating to watch is the president's speech. i have no idea if he'll do it, but i think he should totally pro tend he didn't propose all
of these in may 2010. it's exactly letter of the proposals what he rolled out. i think if he disavows it, he might have a chance. you never know. bill burton, it's great to have you here. i'm sorry that i always tease you, but it's too follow-up to stop. >> thanks for having me. in tht it can be frustrating. it's hard to turn off and go back to sleep. intermezzo is the first and only prescription sleep aid approved for use as needed in the middle of the night when you can't get back to sleep. it's an effective sleep medicine you don't take before bedtime. take it in bed only when you need it and have at least four hours left for sleep. do not take intermezzo if you have had an allergic reaction to drugs containing zolpidem, such as ambien. allergic reactions such as shortness of breath or swelling of your tongue or throat may occur and may be fatal. intermezzo should not be taken if you have taken another sleep medicine at bedtime or in the middle of the night or drank alcohol that day. do not drive or operate machinery
until at least 4 hours after taking intermezzo and you're fully awake. driving, eating, or engaging in other activities while not fully awake without remembering the event the next day have been reported. abnormal behaviors may include aggressiveness, agitation, hallucinations, or confusion. alcohol or taking other medicines that make you sleepy may increase these risks. in depressed patients, worsening of depression, including risk of suicide, may occur. intermezzo, like most sleep medicines, has some risk of dependency. common side effects are headache, nausea, and fatigue. so if you suffer from middle-of-the-night insomnia, ask your doctor about intermezzo and return to sleep again. ♪
they say it, the beltway press writes it down. for some reason, we call that news. on the other hand, the most undercovered story in the beltway media is what republicans like this, republicans with actual governing power, are actually doing with that power in the places where they are in charge. what you do with power says a lot more than what you say about power. even if it isn't always said quite as loudly. paul krugman is our guest tonight for the interview. that's coming up.
they have these where you live? these are called loosies. it means single items of something that are usually sold in packages, like these crackers. but because not everyone can afford to buy a whole box, store owners who have a customer base that doesn't necessarily have a lot of money to spend, those store owners will sometimes sell things loosely, as in loosies. most of the time when people talk about loosies, it means cigarettes. it is an often illegal, but often available way to buy one cigarette at a time instead of buying a whole expensive pack. it's not only cigarettes. you can also find loosie aspirin and loosie eggs and so on.
loosie can tell us a lot about the local customers, whether it's poor students who are trying to bust up a six-pack of beer, or working families scrounging something for the kids to eat. we do not approach the counter with the same amount of money at our disposal. but regardless of how much we can afford to buy at one time, we are all treated the same way by the sales tax. it doesn't care if you're a janitor with four kids or a cardiologist with lots of dollars. the greater percentage of income you pay, if you don't make that much money, that sales tax on the egg might be 1% of a day's pay for you. it could probably be more like a thousandth of a percent of the cardiologist's paycheck for the day. a sales tax is therefore among the least populist way of raising money for government, proportionally speaking. it takes the most from people with the least money, and the least from everybody who has more money. because of that backwards
impact, because it's harder on the poor and easier on the rich, you might think a tax like that would be among the most unpopular tax ideas. but in bright red states, states where republicans have complete control of the government, that tax all of the sudden is really popular. this month in louisiana, republican governor bobby jindal rolled out his agenda for this year. get rid of the income tax and corporate taxes where how much you pay depends on how much you make. but do not worry about the billions in lost tax revenue, because louisiana to compensate will jack up the sales tax that everybody has to pay, and that takes such a bigger chunk out of poor people's pocketbooks. when the nonpartisan tax wonks calculate the effect of governor jindal's plan, they find that overall taxes will fall for the richest 20% of people in the state. their taxes will go down. but for remaining 80% of the population, taxes will go up. and the people in all of louisiana who can least afford a tax hike will get the biggest tax hike. that is what bobby jindal has in the works for louisiana.
happy mardi gras. in kansas, which doesn't have mardi gras, except privately, republican governor sam brownback gets to do more or less what sam brownback wants, because republicans also control the legislature there. the other day, governor brownback announced his agenda for this year. and oh, hey, look, an end to the income tax. already republican tax cuts approved last year have opened up a giant hole in the kansas budget. now the governor wants to pay for that with a higher sales tax. and by ending tax breaks that benefit ordinary working families. this is after kansas republicans already took away tax breaks for stuff like food, the kind of tax breaks that try to make up for the unfair nature of the sales tax. the nonpartisan tax wonks say they have a worried eye on the plans of the republican governors this year. not just in kansas and louisiana, but in wisconsin and in ohio and nebraska. in north carolina, where republicans won complete control last year, they're now talking about making the poor pay more. so that's how the political season is opening up this year
in the red states. in washington, d.c., where republicans are not in charge, where they like to remind everyone that they only control one-half of one-third of the federal government, republicans have been sounding the sad trombone this past week, woe is them. or woe are them, i guess. >> we're expecting here over the next 22 months to be the focus of this administration as they attempt to annihilate the republican party. and let me just tell you, i do believe that is their goal. to just shove us into the dustbin of history. >> he needs to delegitimize the republican party and house republicans in particular. the president will bait us. he will portray us as cruel and unyielding. we can't get rattled. we won't play the villain in his morality plays. >> democrats are not organized enough to have their talking
points be this evident. but when republicans do it, it's kind of obvious. this is the new republican leadership talking point. president obama is mean. and republicans are helpless before his meanness in washington. but you know what? republicans have complete control of government in 24 states. which is a lot. and where they do have control, they're not blaming obama, right? look what they're doing in governance. they're having the rich pay less, and they're having the poor pay more. this is not what they're marketing to the nation, but this is what they're doing when they're handed the reins of government. economist paul krugman wrote about this deja news. taking from ordinary families and giving to the rich. even as republicans look for a way to sound more sympathetic and less extreme, republican policies are taking another sharp right turn. why is this happening? in particular, why is this happening now, just after an election and which the republican party paid a price for its anti-populist stand? good question. and it's the distance between
direct rates side by side to find you a great deal, even if it's not with us. [ ding ] oh, that's helpful! well, our company does that, too. actually, we invented that. it's like a sauna in here. helping you save, even if it's not with us -- now, that's progressive! call or click today. no mas pantalones!
off so they can keep their toys. we've got to be the party that shows all americans how they can thrive. we're the party whose ideas will help the middle class and help more folks join the middle class. we're a populist party, and we need to make that clear to every voter and every american. >> louisiana governor bobby jindal making the case that the republican party is a populist party. two weeks ago governor jindal says he wants to eliminate all income taxes in his state in a revenue-neutral way, making up for it mostly with the sales tax. whatever you think about tax policy, that is pretty much the exact opposite of populist, if the word populist has any meaning. joining us for the interview tonight the paul krugman, author of the best-selling book "end this depression now" which sought right now. thank you for being here. >> hi there. >> you have argued that the republicans get credit for all sorts of things they are not actually for. they get credit for being tough on the deficit when they're not, conservatism in their approach to policy when they really want quite radical changes. is there a coherence that matches the way they talk about
themselves that is evident in the way they are governing in the states that might not be obvious in washington? >> wow. i mean -- in state, in deep red states like louisiana or kansas, basically they are -- we've reached a point where they don't worry about losing the election to democrats. you know, if you talk about one-party rule and southern whites are 90% republican voters, it's just not. so their only concern is about fending off challenges from their own right. so they are free to do what they really want to do, or what their base really wants them to do. and that turns out to be radically -- in a way, it's fiscally more honest, right? at the national level, they've always had the pretense we can cut taxes and somehow that will pay for itself. we will eliminate waste and fraud we won't tell you what, or the magic of the laffer curve. at the state level you can't get away with that but on the other hand, they're free to be honest and say what we really want to
do is take away from middle class and poor families and give to it the rich. and somebody like jindal, who has national ambitions, but is simultaneously running policy in a deep red state, the difference between what he says republicans stand for and what he shows republicans stand for is really dramatic. it's quite something to watch. what is interesting, both these things, both the rhetoric, what he said about we must not be the party that helps the rich keep their toys, that's something you aren't hearing. republicans wouldn't even acknowledge that there was even a possible perception of such things until after this last election. so on one sense they said oh, maybe we have to worry about this class warfare thing. but on the other hand, this brutal upward redistribution of income, that's also something new. it's quite an amazing moment. >> in terms of understanding the magnitude of impact on typical family life in these states, if these changes are made, if kansas and louisiana and some of the other states are considering
totally eliminating income taxes, they do actually make up for it by jacking up sales tax. how will that change those states? >> well, it's a few percent. we're talking something like a 3% hit to the poorest fifth of families, and something like a 3% benefit in terms of income to the richest 1%. so, you know, state budgets are not that big. so federal level changes could be a bigger hit. if you're living fairly close to the edge or at the edge which a lot of poor families are this is a significant thing. if you're -- in the top 1% in louisiana, something like that $25,000 extra a year spending money, not trivial. what is really amazing, by the way, one thing i couldn't get into in the column, if you're worried about the incentive effects, suppose you really worry about taxes diminishing the incentive to work, turns out in our system the highest marginal tax rates, the biggest disincentives to work in our
system are not for the rich. they are for lower income workers who are in the range where if you start to work more, you lose benefits. this raises taxes on people who have the biggest disincentives to work. so it is actually even from the supply side incentive this is going in the wrong direction, but hey, that is not what it is about, right? >> well, it is about marketing in a way, and when they talk about how they want to be seen rather than how they want their policies to be parsed, they're often increasing it. in terms of internationally, the global crisis, one thing you reference is how the united states has fared in the depression compared to other countries. we've sort of done comparatively better than europe. >> we lost the race to the bottom of stupidness. we didn't do as many things wrong as the europeans did. we didn't do well, by any means, but we didn't do the austerity the way britain did.
we at least have a single currency across the continent, but also have a single government. the europeans screwed up in that dimension. but what is interesting, all the things that luckily we didn't do are the things that the gop wanted us to do. wanted us to have british-style austerity and have bad money the way they did. we're actually -- things could be worse, in the environment in the united states. and that always ends with the punch line, and sure enough things got worse, here we are. >> but to explain, and for purposes we ran a experiment, an some countries didn't. >> and up to that point, the track of recovery had been about the same in the u.s. and britain. since then, we've started to recover, and they are in a recession. >> thank you for joining us.
>> all right, we'll be right back with a rachel maddow show, bullpucky alert, this proves to be a real life pile of bull. hold on. [ female announcer ] going to sleep may be easy, but when you wake up in the middle of the night it can be frustrating. it's hard to turn off and go back to sleep. intermezzo is the first and only prescription sleep aid approved for use as needed in the middle of the night when you can't get back to sleep. it's an effective sleep medicine you don't take before bedtime. take it in bed only when you need it and have at least four hours left for sleep. do not take intermezzo if you have had an allergic reaction to drugs containing zolpidem, such as ambien. allergic reactions such as shortness of breath or swelling of your tongue or throat may occur and may be fatal.
intermezzo should not be taken if you have taken another sleep medicine at bedtime or in the middle of the night or drank alcohol that day. do not drive or operate machinery until at least 4 hours after taking intermezzo and you're fully awake. driving, eating, or engaging in other activities while not fully awake without remembering the event the next day have been reported. abnormal behaviors may include aggressiveness, agitation, hallucinations, or confusion. alcohol or taking other medicines that make you sleepy may increase these risks. in depressed patients, worsening of depression, including risk of suicide, may occur. intermezzo, like most sleep medicines, has some risk of dependency. common side effects are headache, nausea, and fatigue. so if you suffer from middle-of-the-night insomnia, ask your doctor about intermezzo and return to sleep again. ♪
neutrogena® rapid wrinkle repair has the fastest retinol formula. to visibly reduce fine lines and wrinkles in just one week. neutrogena®. on friday, we ended the show with a code 3 bullpucky alert, you were all calm, everybody did the show, just like we did my the drills. friday's group, the mandate, supposedly made up of liberals and democratic party, gay rights advocates. here is the problem, the people running this ad have told the press that they are liberal democrats with ties to the obama white house. but have refused to step out in the light. they're doing this anonymously. they paid for a national ad going after this president and his nominee, but have done it secretly. they said they wanted to be anonymous because they feared retribution from the obama white house, as if this white house is
known for crushing liberals who disagree with them. the hole thing just seemed a little off. i'm not buying it. i call bullpucky. i say it is even money that this is the right running ads against hagel while pretending to be the left. i may be wrong, but i call bullpucky, if i'm wrong, there is an easy way to prove it. if you are not liz cheney or some republican, i'll be the first to admit i'm wrong. but i don't think i'm wrong. this is not a liberal group. it is a right wing group, you're trying to look like liberals and we can tell. that was friday, tonight, the follow-up. the day after the censors went off, the day after i said it was bill kristol or somebody like him, or i'm wrong, the day after they reported it after the ads, according to "the times," the group used the mandate, who has
no sense of irony at all, used the mandate, hire the firm which is an arm of one of the most prominent republican ad buying firms in the country. between the times reporting and a follow-up at buzz feed, we learned that the firm's client list doesn't look at all that liberal or democratic or nice to gay people. it includes the republican national committee and the republican governor's association, and the sarah palin campaign, and the senate for o'donnell campaign, also i'm not a witch. and the concerned committee for israel which has on its board a rather famously anti-gay gary bower, the guy whose campaign went to, dan licked the door knobs at the campaign of gary bower to try to give him and his staff the flu. the group has a